386
obligatory bear post
(lemmy.cafe)
is the man or bear thing rhetorically or optically the perfect feminist meme that is beyond criticism? no.
but is it leaps and bounds better at getting men to understand the material consequences of patriarchy on the physical and emotional health of women than that stupid “kill all men” meme from last decade? definitely.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the argument is men have been having very serious discussions for probably millenia about what animals they could and could not beat in a fight. And it is implicitly known that the guy who comes in saying he could beat a bear is way up his own ass. Now here comes a meme appearing to imply that men could beat a bear in a fight, and the urge to correct is strong.
I understand and agree with the sentiment, but I also want you to know you can't beat a bear in a fight, but will gladly discuss what animals you might win against.
What about a Cheetah?
This is good insight into the cultural context that led into this.
I think it varies wildly individual to individual. For example, some of my personal experience/knowledge is that while I can never beat a bear, bears may be discouraged, scared, and shouted down from attacking with proper preparation and training - a luxury that women do not have against men.
Another nuance I saw someone mention is that if I get attacked by a bear, at least I’m fucking dead and I don’t have to live to deal with the psychosocial horror of having to convince a cop, judge or jury, friends or family that I wasn’t “asking for it,” underscoring the damage that a victim-blaming culture has on women.
Just in case someone else didn't explain (or i'm the one that missed something) this meme is actually referencing the recent internet hubbub of: women were asked if they were hiking alone, would they rather run into a strange man or a bear, and many women picked the bear.
It's not about fighting, though. It's actually implied that a bear would either be less agressive, or at least: less cruel.
Which is why framing the concept in a context that is parallel to one already very familiar to men (what animal is a bigger threat) has caused such misunderstanding.
I think a man would be more likely to recognise a woman as a woman.
A bear doesn't care. The bear sees the woman as a human, and acts accordingly.
So yeh, the bear would be more predictable.
Imagine if humans treated all humans as human.
bears don't rape and kidnap women. People - overwhelmingly men - do.
I don't understand at all where fighting came into this. Am a man.
Omg you re the first I see that understand that its more the urge to correct than an politic or genre idea. Thx also I could win against a cheetah I think . can I use stone or stick?
Yeah, but Cheetahs can be way bigger than you expect, up to 160 pounds. I think if it can build up enough speed and has the chance to pounce you're gonna have the wind knocked out of you before you can do much.
?!
you have missed the point completely.
And I believe you missed the words "appearing to imply" and my point completely.
...........
Sure.
The original meme is about women feeling they are less threatened by a bear than a strange man, the bear might leave them alone or not be aggressive where a man would be more likely to. That men can be a threat in different ways.
Separately men very often discuss what animals they could beat in a fight. This results in a misunderstanding/disconnect between "who would you feel less threatened by" and "who would win in a fight", which I agree is not what the original meme of women "choosing the bear" is about, but it is a very similar dynamic that results in men explaining that you won't win a fight against a bear. Which, again, is not the point of the original meme indicating a feeling that a bear might be less likely to harm or threaten you, which is why it results in people talking past each other. (Kind of like right now...)
so you just conflated two random subjects because....?
Men don't 'very often discuss' what animals they can fight. get over yourself.
"very often" is hyperbole, but if you've never had/heard of that discussion I would be surprised. But I don't think "men are misunderstanding the question" is a crazy take.
"who would win in a fight" and "who would you feel more threatened by" are by no means two "random" subjects, they are very closely related in theme and in most situations the answers would be interchangeable. And the conflation of the two closely related topics of conversation was my entire point.
the only context I've ever discussed this is a horse sized chicken or 50 chicken sized horses.
the hilarious thing is, it's not about you, unless you're the kind of guy who makes women fear for their safety.